They are not the thing. One who is free of grasping and attachment has no need renunciation.

Being free of grasping and attachment is itself renunciation. This renunciation is however not exactly the same as renunciation in the context of path of renunciation, transformation and self-liberation.

/magnus

"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."- Longchenpa

For dealing with the passions, we can use the example of a poisonous plant. According to the Sutra interpretation, the plant must be destroyed, because there is no other way to resolve the problem of its poison. The Sutra practitioner renounces all the passions.

According to the Tantric system, the tantric adept should take the poisonous plant and mix it with another plant in order to form an antidote: he does not reject the passions but tries to transform them into aids to practice. The tantric adept is like a doctor who transforms the poisonous plants into medicine.

The peacock, on the other hand, eats the poisonous plant because he has the capacity to use the energy contained in the poison to make himself more beautiful; that is, he frees the poisonous property of the plant into energy for growth. This is the Dzogchen method of effortlessly liberating passions directly as they arise.

The merit accrued brings us to becoming a Buddha, when one is a Buddha one has all the skills necessary to benefits sentient beings.

Now as we practice as unenlightened beings, we have a limited capacity to benefit all beings. Whereas a Buddha has a ll qualities and resources to benefit beings on many levels. So becoming a Buddha is not for the sake of becoming one, but to save all sentient beings. Hence bodhicitta is the wish to benefit all sentient beings.

waimengwan wrote:Renunciation, how I understand this is we need renunciation then the actions that we do will result in true merit. Without renunciation all actions we do can be either karma or a combination of karma and merits. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Then as a lay person what kind of renunciation can we achieve without becoming a monastic?

You may find this helpful.

The Buddhist view of renunciation is based not in distancing oneself from the others but through renouncing of the ego or the 'self' and finding a better ability of generating an introspection that arouses the wisdom which illuminates the basic goodness, the core quality of every human being."--Jetsün Khandro Rinpochefrom here- http://www.ajatananda.org/ajatananda/jetsun-khandro-rinpoche-msg.php

Of course, a dictionary defintion is always a useful starting point for understanding what a concept "means". But meaning is not confined to the dictionary and it is just as useful to understand how a word (or concept) is used. Meaning comes down to usage when all is said and done. To insist that something only means what the dictionary says it means is folly. Not that anyone here is insisting on a particular meaning. As far as I can tell.

In this case, the meaning of renunciation, it seems to me, would depend entirely on what yana one is practicing, since each yana seems to use the word somewhat differently. There is not one and only one "definition" of what such a concept "means".

It's always good to ask what something means as long as you understand the context of the answer. Not so easy though to understand context and usage. So much easier if everything were just black and white, yes?

Im not actually sure I've said anything useful here at all but my two cents, fwiw.

O.k it's better to use scripture to get the point across. So who better to quote than Nagarjuna?

Question 1. I want liberation. What is liberation?:''when karmic actions and mental afflictionscease, that is liberation.''

Question 2. So can ''I'' get liberated?''The one who experiences perceptions does not exist,Before, during, or after the experiences of seeing and so forth.Knowing this, all thoughts of anexperiencer of perceptions either existing or not existing are reversed.''

Question 3. But what about samsara - that exists right?:''No beginning is perceptible,No end is perceptible,And nothing in between is perceptible either.''

Question 4. But what about birth and death?''Since one cannot happen before the others,And they cannot happen simultaneously,Why would you ever thinkThat birth, aging and death truly exist?''

Question 5. But I want to be enlightened, to become a Buddha.''Whatever is the nature of the Tathagata,That is the nature of wandering beings.The Tathagata has no inherent nature;Wandering beings have no inherent nature.

Question 6. But Buddha is perfect and I want to be perfect. What about renouncing pleasure?''How could it be possible forSentient beings who are like illusions,Or objects that are like reflections,To be either pleasant or unpleasant?

Question 7. But surely we have to attain something through renunciation? What about Nirvana?''Nothing to abandon, nothing to attain,Nothing extinct, nothing permanent,No cessation, no arising_This is how nirvana is taught to be.''

These are useful quotes. Nagarjuna amazes. Much better to post these then talk about the issues based on my own experience.

The Blessed One said:

"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." Sabba Sutta.